The present split among the Polish Social-Democrats is the
fruit of a conflict that began several years ago. At the Sixth Congress of
the Party, in 1908, such a sharp antagonism was shown between the Executive
Committee, on the one hand, and the Warsaw and Dombrowa area organisations,
on the other, that the Congress rejected a motion of confidence in the
Executive. The conflict was organisational but had great political
significance. The two local organisations insisted on the opportunity to
influence the political position of the Party, and claimed widespread
discussion of all its steps by the organisations.

The Executive has remained, nevertheless, in the hands of the same
people. And its majority, headed by the notorious Tyszka, sticks to its
tactics, profiting by the weakening of the Party, by failures and by the
conditions of counter revolution. In the R.S.D.L.P., Tyszka played the
master and plotted in the name of the Social-Democracy of Poland and
Lithuania, without paying the slightest attention to the will of the
latter. In the policy of the Party, an era of unprincipledness and
vacillation began, on such questions, for example, as the trade unions, the
attitude to the P.S.P., and the tactics of the Polish Social-Democrats
within the R.S.D.L.P. Comrades who laid bare the contradictions in the
policy of the Executive and demanded a consistently principled line had
their mouths shut by the Executive, which would not allow any discussion in
the press and, worse still, constantly promised to open a
discussion “in the near future”, when it would also publish the comrades’
protests against its tactics. Tyszka’s opponents on the Executive itself,
who were all old functionaries, well known to
the whole Party, were ousted one by one. One of them refused to stand for
re-election at the Sixth Congress, saying that it was impossible to work
with Tyszka, another was ousted in 1909, and a third refused to enter the
Executive in 1911.

But as the movement grew and became more active, from early 1911
onwards, discontent began to show in local organisations as well. The
“rebellion” was led by the War saw organisation, which is the most
important and powerful, and above all the most consistent in the
revolutionary sense, and which, ever since 1905, has been in the Left wing
among the Polish Social-Democrats.

The Executive, of course, became uneasy and made ready to “nip it in
the bud”. The December 1911 inter-district conference in Warsaw served as
the signal for the attack. That conference made bold to insist that the
“territory” should be represented more strongly at the next
Party conference, i.e.—the impious idea!—that the influence of
the Executive at the conference should thereby be weakened. But that would
have been half the trouble, for a similar resolution was adopted by the
Lodz conference as well. Warsaw did something more criminal: it showed that
it demanded this not haphazardly, but with a political aim in
view. It adopted several political resolutions that Tyszka did not like;
among other things, it expressed displeasure at the fact that the Executive
had submitted no report to Warsaw on its activity, and demanded that the
Executive should acquaint the Party with its activity inside the
R.S.D.L.P., that it should not make a “Russian” policy secretly from the
Polish workers, and so on.

An open struggle began. Tyszka gave vent to a series of “circulars”
and “explanations”. He “explained” that
(1) the Warsaw organisation had trampled the Party Rules underfoot and
resorted to a split;
(2) that its resolutions were an indication of boycottism, otzovism and
anarchism;
(3) that it had no ideological differences with the Executive and hence the
split had no political basis;
(4) that the Warsaw organisation did not exist, the conference had been
fictitious, and consequently there was and had been no split;
(5) that the Warsaw organisation had been unable to publish a single sheet
on its own and had left all
literary work to the Executive; that it had, unlawfully devised a
disruptive technique of its own and was publishing its own sheets. He also
gave a personal description, complete with family details, of a couple of
Warsaw “intellectualist
warchols”,[1]
and explained that they had brought about a split but did not work in the
organisation and never had.

Finally, seeing that the Warsaw organisation held its ground, Tyszka
made up his mind to take
“heroic”measures.
He decided to call a fictitious conference and not to allow it to
be attended by the opposition, i.e., the vast majority of the comrades
active in the territory. To that end he announced the “dissolution” of
the strongest organisation—Warsaw—and formed a separate “Warsaw
organisation” of splitters out of two or three agents of his own.

But the most outrageous thing is the “grounds” on which Tyszka
“dissolved” the Warsaw organisation. He announced that the organisation,
which refused to submit to him, was nothing but a tool of police
provocation. So far he has not cited a single serious fact, even of the
very smallest kind, to support his allegation. Nor has he published the
name of a single person he suspects. What is more, to leave the way to
retreat open, he wrote like a coward, in a statement to the International
Bureau, that provocation could very easily have ensconced itself in Warsaw
as in any other organisation functioning under the present
conditions.

Nevertheless, Tyszka saw fit to “dissolve” the Warsaw organisation,
and even to declare it to be outside the R.S.D.L.P. The reader will see
that this is no longer a factional struggle but in fact something of a
criminal nature.

Needless to say this reckless step by Tyszka’s caused indignation ten
times as great. The committee which he himself had appointed to inquire
into the provocation came out against him. Tyszka replied by expelling from
the Party three leaders of the Polish Social-Democracy who had been members
of the Party for many years and who enjoyed universal
confidence. Forty-four veteran functionaries published a most emphatic
protest against the
Executive’s actions, which are humiliating to any revolutionary. Both in
the territory and abroad, people insist that the “Executive” should be
called to account. It goes without saying that the Warsaw organisation did
not dissolve itself to please Tyszka but continues its work, which is so
difficult under present conditions. It was the “opposition” that achieved
signal success in the elections for the worker curia of Warsaw. The
elections gave the Social-Democrats an absolute majority over all the other
parties. Of the 34 Social-Democratic delegates, 31 support the opposition,
2 are vacillating, and only one backs Tyszka. On the other hand, in the
provinces, where the “work” is carried on by the Executive and its
supporters, the election campaign was lost everywhere.

It is to be hoped that the petty and unseemly squabble caused by
Tyszka’s conduct will soon be a thing of the past and that differences of
principle will stand out more clearly. The Polish worker Social-Democrats’
desire to establish closer organisational links with their Russian comrades
will also find a more specific expression. Tyszka’s conduct in the
R.S.D.L.P. has resulted in the Executive becoming completely divorced from
the life of the Party as a whole and having not a single ally in the
R.S.D.L.P., and both sides (the liquidators and anti-liquidators) alike are
shrugging their shoulders over the strange and unprincipled “tactics” of
Tyszka and his “Executive”.

The Polish Social-Democrats are passing through hard times. But already
there are signs of a way out. All the sound elements of the Polish
Social-Democratic movement are rallying together. And the time is already
near when the Polish Social-Democracy will be an organisation of pro-Party
worker Social-Democrats who have principles and tactics of their own and
are not a plaything in the hands of an unscrupulous plotter.

We think it necessary to complete the report on the split among the
Polish Social-Democrats with certain data on the subsequent history of the
accusation of “provocation”. Here is what we have been told:

Rosa Luxemburg (member of the International Socialist Bureau from the
Polish Social-Democracy) wrote a note to the I.S.B. alleging that the
Warsaw Committee was made up of splitters and was in the hands of the
secret police, stating that this was not to be published!

Yet Tyszka himself published this abomination in the Polish
Social-Democratic press!!

Lenin, upon receiving a copy of Tyszka’s note from Huysmans, Secretary
of the International Socialist Bureau, sent a letter to Huysmans, of
course, saying that it was a “most perfidious” act of vengeance, that
Malecki and Hanecki, ex-members of the Central Committee, were known to all
in the Party; that the committee of inquiry appointed by Tyszka himself had
discovered no provocation; that to publish anything about
provocation among political opponents, without giving names, was a most
foul and mean thing to
do.[2]

The Basle Congress met. The delegation of the Warsaw Committee was
unanimously recognised by all
R.S.D.L.P. delegates—liquidators, Letts, Vperyodists, Bundists and
Trotskyists alike!

The Warsaw election resulted in both electors being worker
Social-Democrats who supported the Warsaw Committee and were
opposed to Tyszka and Co.

The fictitious nature of Tyszka’s parallel organisation has been
demonstrated to all. The honest course—of with drawing the accusation of
provocation—is more than Tyszka and his Executive can adopt.

But best of all are our liquidators and their Organising Committee, who
love “unity”. Luch, which officially adheres to the
August conference, has twice printed Tyszka’s foul lie!!

On the first occasion it was done by a gentleman who hid behind
initials. The second time it was done by
Mr. Avgustovsky.[3]

And see how brave they are! They put about a foul story—and take
cover behind the back of the Executive. We’ve got nothing to do with it,
they seem to say, we cannot be
held responsible, we aren’t putting about any foul story, we are
“only” reporting the fact that something (a foul story)
was printed on behalf of the Executive!!